Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 285

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Rabindra Prasad Sah – Appellant
Versus
Apollo Multispeciality Hospital Ltd. – Respondent
NC/CC/188/2012

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. T. V. George, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Advocate, Ms. Rupali Ghosh, Advocate, Mr. Prabir Basu, Advocate, Mr. Kaushik Poddar, Advocate, Mr. A. Dalal, Advocate

Known surgical complications like bowel injury during hysterectomy by qualified doctors do not constitute negligence if due care exercised; Medical Council findings post-remand hold great relevance absent challenge.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 13(2)(a) - Mandatory time-limit of 45 days for filing written statement - Non-compliance leads to forfeiture of right to file, upheld as mandatory by Supreme Court - Proceedings not to be questioned on natural justice grounds. (Paras 2, 4)

(B) Medical negligence - Bowel perforation during hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy - Known complication, not negligence if occurring despite due care by qualified surgeon - Delayed diagnosis disputed but prompt action on confirmation via CT scan and laparotomy. Post-operative symptoms (pain, discharge, breathlessness) not indicative of injury until imaging - Rare bacterial infection (VRE) post-repair led to sepsis and death. (Paras 20-28, 31-36)

(C) Expert opinion - Findings of Medical Council of India post-remand by High Court holding no negligence, given great relevance by Supreme Court - Binding in absence of challenge. Consent form disclosing risks (haemorrhage, infection, bowel injury) negates lack of informed consent claim. (Paras 38-40)

Facts of the case:
Patient underwent open abdominal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy on 01.07.2010. Post-operative pain noted from 02.07.2010, escalating on 03.07.2010 leading to CT scan confirming bowel perforation (1.5x1.5 cm), repaired via laparotomy same day. Complications including VRE infection, sepsis ensued, patient expired on 13.07.2010. Complaint claimed Rs.1.25 crore compensation for negligence in surgery and delayed detection.

Findings of Court:
No negligence established - Injury a known rare complication of complex surgery involving bulky uterus; doctors qualified and experienced; symptoms consistent with post-op recovery until confirmed by imaging; MCI expert opinion conclusive; hospital to forgo recovery claims humanely.

Issues: Whether bowel perforation during surgery and 48-hour delay in detection constituted negligence; adequacy of post-operative monitoring and informed consent; relevance of MCI findings.

Ratio Decidendi: Occurrence of known surgical complication by skilled doctor does not prove negligence absent error in judgment or sub-standard care. MCI's detailed expert analysis post-judicial remand carries presumptive weight, symptoms did not mandate earlier invasive checks, prompt intervention post-diagnosis.

Result: Complaint dismissed.

Table of Content
1. bowel perforation during hysterectomy due to delayed diagnosis. (Para 1 , 12 , 16 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
2. procedural history and procedural orders upheld. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. doctors qualified; bowel injury known complication. (Para 17 , 18 , 30 , 34 , 35 , 36)
4. post-operative pain normal; timely intervention after symptoms. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
5. mci findings binding; no negligence established. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
6. complaint dismissed; sympathy without liability. (Para 41 , 42 , 43)

ORDER

JUSTICE A. P. SAHI, PRESIDENT

1. This is a complaint arising out of an allegation of medical negligence against the OP-2, Gynaecologist Dr. Poonam Banka and the assisting Dr. Bindu Kedia, OP-3, who conducted a hysterectomy (surgery for removal of the uterus) and Bilateral Oophorectomy at the OP-1 hospital on 01.07.2010. The complainant no. 1 is the husband and the complainants nos. 2 and 3 are their children, who have come up in this complaint claiming compensation against the OPs to the tune of Rs. 1,25,00,000/-.

2. The matter proceeded with the admission of the complaint on 09.10.2013 when the following order was passed:

The complaint stands admitted.

Learned counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 is present. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 is not present. He is absent despite service. He be proceeded against ex parte. It is very strange that when we were proceeding against opposite party No. 3, an advocate by the name of Shri Nishe Rajen Shanker comes and states that he is appearing for opposite party No. 3. He has given memo of appearance.

So far as opposite party No. 1 is concerned, the right of opposite party No. 1 to file the written statement shall stand forfeited under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So far as opposite party No. 2 is concerned, he was not served in this case. He filed the written statement alongwith opposite party No. 1 on 24.9.2013. It is not clear when it was served or when did he come to know about the pendency of this case. The opposite party No. 2 is given time to file separate written statement within 30 days from today. The opposite party No. 3 was served on 1.6.2013. He has not filed the written statement till now. His right to file the same shall stand forfeited.

The Apex Court in Dr. J. J. Merchant vs. Srinath Chaturvedi III 2002 CPJ 8(SC), was pleased to hold:

"..... From the aforesaid section, it is apparent that on receipt of the complaint, the opposite party is required to be given notice directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum or the Commission. For having speedy trial, this legislative mandate of not giving more than 45 days in submitting the written statement or the version of the case is required to be adhered to. If this is not adhered, the legislative mandate of disposing of the cases within three or five months would be defeated."

The matter is adjourned to 13.11.2013.

3. The OP-3 did not contest the matter and it is otherwise stated that she is not available in India. The OP-2 has filed her written objections and is represented by Mr. Kaushik Poddar, who has advanced submissions on her behalf.

4. The OP-1 hospital is represented by Advocate Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh and it was pointed out that the right of the OP-1 to file written version was forfeited under the aforesaid order dated 09.10.2013 and was challenged in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 11257-11258/2014 that was dismissed on 12.03.2024. The order of the Apex Court is extracted hereinunder:

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. A consumer complaint was filed by the respondent-consumer before the National Forum. The respondent before the National Forum i.e. the appellant before this Court, could not file his written statement within the stipulated time and therefore, the right to file written statement has been closed by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 285

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONA.P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, MemberRabindra Prasad Sah – AppellantVersusApollo Multispeciality Hospital Ltd. – RespondentNC/CC/188/2012

Known surgical complications like bowel injury during hysterectomy by qualified doctors do not constitute negligence if due care exercised; Medical Council findings post-remand hold great relevance absent challenge.

Cases Referred (2)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.P. Sahi, President, Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Rabindra Prasad Sah – Appellant
Versus
Apollo Multispeciality Hospital Ltd. – Respondent
NC/CC/188/2012